We've long criticized the vague language of the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act(CISPA). One particularly dangerous provision, designed to enable corporations to obtain and share information, is drafted broadly enough to go beyond just companies, creating a government access loophole.

The financial data of American citizens is set to be open season for spy agencies as the fight against terrorism and cybercrime continues. According to Reuters, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and National Security Agency (NSA) may one day soon have the ability to access a central database which records and contains financial transactions made by American citizens — something that only law enforcement agencies have had unbridled access to.

Last year, right on the heels of our historic victory against SOPA, a piece of really nasty legislation almost passed that would have radically undermined online privacy.

It was called CISPA. And it raced through the US House of Representatives, passing before any of us had a chance to react. We stalled the bill in the Senate, but now CISPA is back, and we don't want to make the same mistake twice. Before there is *any* movement on the bill, we want to send a strong message to Congress that CISPA shouldn't pass.

And help get more people signed up by sharing this page with your social network:

Wait, what is CISPA? And why does it matter so much?

CISPA (the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act) would give companies complete freedom to share your personal data with the US government. It doesn't *require* them to do so, but if the government asked it would be hard to say no, and they'd have no reason to-- CISPA would free them from any promises made to customers in public statements or privacy policies.

Your emails, your Facebook account, your bank statements, the websites you visit, your real-time location (courtesy of your cellphone company)-- all of it could soon belong to a slew of government agencies and even local police, who could use it against you without a warrant.

demandprogress.org asks for action to block CFAA, in a circular email:

Quote

We need to beat back a bad proposal to expand the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) -- in a hurry. So we're asking Demand Progress members and the broader Internet Defense League to snap into action next week, especially Monday and Tuesday (April 8th and 9th.)

1) You can read more and grab code for our embeddable contact-Congress widgets by clicking here: www.FixTheCFAA.com

We'd ask you to post them to your site to help let your visitors know about this threat, and to spur them to get involved. You'll be joining Fight for the Future, Demand Progress, EFF, Boing Boing, Reddit, and other great groups and sites as we stand together against this awful proposal.

2) You can use these links to ask your friends to take part:

[fb] If you're already on Facebook, click here to share with your friends.[fb] If you're already on Twitter, click here to tweet about the campaign: Tweet

As many of you probably know, our friend (and friend to many of you) Aaron Swartz committed suicide earlier this year, while he was being prosecuted for downloading too many academic articles from the JSTOR cataloguing site. Prosecutors were hanging four decades in prison over his head!

Aaron was charged under the CFAA, a law that passed in the mid-80s, before more than a handful of Americans even had personal computers -- let alone Internet access.

Yet law enforcement interprets this statute so broadly that it claims it criminalizes all sorts of mundane Internet use: potentially even breaking a website's fine print terms of service agreement. Don't set up a Myspace page for your cat. Don't fudge your height on a dating site. Don't share your Facebook password with anybody, ever. You could be exposed to prosecution for a federal crime.

We've been pushing to change this, and have made some progress: Reps and Senators are pulling together a proposal called "Aaron's Law".

But... then last week members of the House Judiciary Committee floated an audacious proposal that would actually expand and harshen certain parts of the CFAA. Think of it as the opposite of Aaron's Law. And we're hearing that it could come up for a vote as soon as next week.

We need your helping mobilizing your visitors as we strive to beat back this awful proposal and to build momentum for Aaron's Law.

1) You can read more and grab code for our embeddable contact-Congress widgets by clicking here: www.FixTheCFAA.com

We'd ask you to post them to your site to help let your visitors know about this threat, and to spur them to get involved. You'll be joining Fight for the Future, Demand Progress, EFF, Boing Boing, Reddit, and other great groups and sites as we stand together against this awful proposal.

2) You can use these links to ask your friends to take part:

[fb] If you're already on Facebook, click here to share with your friends.[fb] If you're already on Twitter, click here to tweet about the campaign: Tweet

Reforming the CFAA is a real chance for the US Congress to make laws governing the Internet better and fairer. And it's a chance for the coalition that came together around SOPA to actually pass positive reform. If all of us take action next week, it won't just kill a bad bill, it will help us build real momentum to passing positive change in the wake of Aaron's death.

Thanks,

Demand ProgressPaid for by Demand Progress (DemandProgress.org) and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. Contributions are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes.

One last thing -- Demand Progress's small, dedicated, under-paid staff relies on the generosity of members like you to support our work. Will you click here to chip in $5 or $10? Or you can become a Demand Progress monthly sustainer by clicking here. Thank you!

Last month BitTorrent site isoHunt lost its appeal against the MPAA, meaning that the site has to continue filtering movie and TV related terms from its search engine. However, isoHunt founder Gary Fung is not giving up just yet and has asked for a jury to decide on the case. In a petition filed this week isoHunt argues that, among other things, the Ninth Circuit decision chills innovation and threatens free speech online.

mpaa isohuntFor more than seven years isoHunt and the MPAA have been battling in court, and it’s not over yet.

In 2010 the District Court ordered the owner of isoHunt to start censoring the site’s search engine based on a list of thousands of keywords provided by the MPAA, or cease its operations entirely in the US.

IsoHunt hoped to overturn this ruling in an appeal, but last month the Ninth Circuit upheld the decision of the lower court, ruling that the website does not qualify for safe harbor protection under the DMCA.

For now this means that the keyword filter stays in place, but for isoHunt founder Gary Fung this is not the end of the matter. This week isoHunt’s legal team petitioned the court for a re-hearing before a jury.

Among other things, isoHunt argues that the current verdict chills innovation and threatens free speech on the Internet.

“Fung contends that many of the items of evidence cited by the District Court should be protected as Free Speech under the First Amendment to the Constitution and would be inadmissible at trial. As a result of decisions herein, impermissible burdens are being imposed on Fung’s speech and on the speech of other Internet users,” the petition reads.

The MPAA used quotes from isoHunt’s founder dating back to 2003, to argue that he was aware of and liable for copyright infringing use of the site. As evidence the MPAA cited the following statements made by Fung in a forum thread discussing the RIAA.

“Agreed. they accuse us for thieves, and they r right. Only we r ‘stealing’ from the leechers (them!) and not the originators (artists),” Fung wrote.

IsoHunt’s founder later updated the IRC announce bot to say: “Files… are now being indexed for isoHunt.com…We completely OPPOSE RIAA & Co., so do not be alarmed by our indexing activities.”

In its petition for a re-hearing isoHunt argues that when these isolated statements are used to determine liability, without any connection to direct infringements, this could “severely chill free speech” and threaten innovation.

“The effect of decisions herein is to make sarcasm directed at copyright enforcement or statements in support of file-sharing a reason for later imposition of liability. Cautious individuals will practice self-censorship. Outspoken individuals will avoid certain areas of technological development,” isoHunt’s legal team writes.

The free speech concerns are not the only issue raised by isoHunt. The petition also contends that there is no evidence that isohunt’s founder promoted or facilitated direct copyright infringements.

In addition, the petition protests the ruling that Fung should not be entitled to safe harbor protection under the DMCA because he knew that isoHunt users were sharing copyrighted material. According to isoHunt’s legal team this goes directly against verdicts in other cases, such as the dispute between YouTube and Viacom.

With a re-hearing before a jury isoHunt is confident it can win the case as that will provide an opportunity to counter specific allegations of copyright infringement. If this request is granted the case is expected to continue for a few more years, perhaps making it to its 10th anniversary in 2016.

...The entry had existed on French-language Wikipedia for many years, but recently came to the attention of officials in France's Homeland Intelligence agency, known as the DCRI (Direction Centrale du Renseignement Intérieur)...

Lauren Weinstein's Blog has an interesting post on the "Inspector Clouseau" event I mentioned above - coincidentally, he also refers to Clouseau.The post is France Threatens the Internet: "Censorship or Shackles!"This is just an extract, covering some general points which concerned me when I read about the censorship - after all, that's my (and your) Internet they are forcibly censoring there, and this latest thing is just "signs of the times" (quote copied sans embedded hyperlinks/images):

Quote

...Around the world, governments are attempting to remake the Web and the greater Internet in their own traditional images.

They have significant resources that can be brought to bear, especially when they succeed in redefining Internet-based freedom of speech as national security risks. Shackles, cells, even firing squads and other lethal methodologies are at their disposal.

Increasingly, we see vague and often highly suspect claims of "cyberwar" being bandied about as a predicate at least for vast diversions of power and money to the "cyberscare-industrial complex" -- and even as potential justifications for cyber or physical retaliations against the designated enemies of the moment.

We see this same class of fear tactics being deployed to justify government scanning of private computing and communications facilities, demands for purpose-built surveillance of encrypted communications systems that actually make these systems more vulnerable to black-hat hacking, and a range of other demands from authorities. Since the big cyber-security bucks are now in play, it's understandable why authorities would prefer to concentrate on theoretical computer-based infrastructure risks, rather than the very real risk of explosives in some empty desert area being used to bring down critical high voltage transmission towers.

With cybersecurity as with so much else, "money is honey."

In context, it's obvious that whether we're talking about overbearing government security services apparently using China and North Korea as their new operating paradigms, or the 21st century version of traditional power and money grabs via fear tactics deluxe, we can't help but return to the fact that governments are trying on various fronts to maintain their old authoritarian models of security and censorship in the new world of ubiquitous Internet communications.

And while today's story involved France and Wikipedia, these are only really placeholders of the moment that can be easily substituted with other countries and other organizations -- or individuals -- going forward.

The best of times, the worst of times. We dare not permit the distraction of seeming clowns in the foreground to blind us from the sharp and shiny falling blades of censorship and surveillance lurking just behind, aimed directly at our figurative (and in some horrific cases perhaps quite literal) naked necks.

Follow @ZDNetCharlie If the current cybercrime space prompts firms to share citizen data, should companies be held liable in citizen lawsuits?

Many firms, including AT&T, Verizon and Boeing, do not think so. This is the issue that is coming before the House Intelligence Committee this week, and the governmental body may pass a bill which would provide large companies lawsuit immunity in the case of data exchange and unhappy, privacy-conscious Americans. See the rest here:http://www.zdnet.com...this-week-7000013663

Congress Wants to Make CFAA Penalities Worse -- We Need to Stop ThemLast week, Congress put forth a bill that would dangerously expand computer crime law to double or even triple the penalties prosecutors could use to threaten computer users -- people like digital rights activist Aaron Swartz. We've got to stop them and tell them this law needs real reform to protect visionary, talented, justice-driven individuals like Aaron. We're pulling out all the stops this week, and we need your help. We need the Internet to speak out with a voice so loud legislators have no choice but to listen.

Here's the game plan:

We have built a Twitter tool https://cfaa.eff.org/ that helps you to tweet at legislators. Staffers count these messages, so please tweet lots. Call the House Judiciary Committee. We've collected their numbers and prepared an easy-to-follow script https://www.eff.org/...eform-and-aarons-law for the phone call. If you've never called your legislators before, today is the day to start. Change your Twitter icon to reflect that you're taking part in this cause. We've created an image https://www.eff.org/...n-demanding-congress that can help spread the word. Finally, if you haven't yet, please take our action alert https://eff.org/aarons-law to e-mail Congress about the specific changes we'd like to see in a reformed CFAA. Congress can't get this right unless they hear from you. Please join us in taking action today.

The government has a knack for the "small print" and how they word things that leaves the door wide open for the government spooks to do their thing, all while sharing with local law enforcement and tech companies that benefit from private information. Most likely it's also another one of those "follow the money" bills.

The government has a knack for the "small print" and how they word things that leaves the door wide open for the government spooks to do their thing, all while sharing with local law enforcement and tech companies that benefit from private information. Most likely it's also another one of those "follow the money" bills.

No matter how you look at it, it's Orwellian.

Some of that, and some of just blatant chutpah, steamrolling over the obvious "rights" so hard you don't even know where to pick up from total disbelief.

In anticipation of a full House vote in the House on Wednesday, industry giant IBM has sent nearly 200 senior execs to Washington to lobby in support of CISPA.

And their intentions couldn't be more clear. CISPA would empower them to share your private data with the military without a warrant -- and they wouldn't hesitate to do so.

Chris Padilla, IBM's VP of governmental affairs told TheHill.com that IBM and other corporations "should be able to work directly and share information directly" with the National Security Agency "because that's where the expertise is."

We have to stop this bill from becoming law and eviscerating our hard-won civil liberties and privacy rights. Click here to urge your reps to oppose CISPA on Wednesday.

Despite an outpouring of opposition from the ACLU, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and over 100,000 Demand Progress members, the House Intelligence committee has voted to approve CISPA--a cyber-security bill that would give companies unprecedented power to share your private information with the government, including the intelligence agencies like the NSA, without a warrant.

Now the bill moves to the House for a full vote on Wednesday. We need to reiterate our opposition to this dangerous legislation loud and clear.

In anticipation of a full House vote in the House on Wednesday, industry giant IBM has sent nearly 200 senior execs to Washington to lobby in support of CISPA.

And their intentions couldn't be more clear. CISPA would empower them to share your private data with the military without a warrant -- and they wouldn't hesitate to do so.

Chris Padilla, IBM's VP of governmental affairs told TheHill.com that IBM and other corporations "should be able to work directly and share information directly" with the National Security Agency "because that's where the expertise is."

We have to stop this bill from becoming law and eviscerating our hard-won civil liberties and privacy rights. Click here to urge your reps to oppose CISPA on Wednesday.

Despite an outpouring of opposition from the ACLU, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and over 100,000 Demand Progress members, the House Intelligence committee has voted to approve CISPA--a cyber-security bill that would give companies unprecedented power to share your private information with the government, including the intelligence agencies like the NSA, without a warrant.

Now the bill moves to the House for a full vote on Wednesday. We need to reiterate our opposition to this dangerous legislation loud and clear.

(a) It looks like the Obama administration are wanting to block this CISPA legislation that could threaten to erode citizens' statutory rights - whereas the same administration is at the same time apparently intent on shoving through other legislation that would ... threaten to reduce citizens' statutory rights!?Is this some kind of "good cop, bad cop" play?

(b) Some people (not me you understand) might say that a senator who would malign in such a vitriolic and despising way any opponents to his proposed legislation to erode citizens' statutory rights would seem to be acting unprofessionally and against the interests of citizens, and that may indicate that he has a vested interest in the proposals getting pushed through - but I couldn't possibly comment.